6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  The applicant used to work for the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the Ministry”). On his retirement in 1984 he received a State pension. On 23 June 1993 the Parliament enacted an Act establishing the manner of calculating the pensions of certain categories of military and affiliated personnel (no.1544-XIII) (“the 1993 Act”), which also applied to the applicant's case. On 21 February 1994 the Government adopted Decision no. 78 regarding the calculation of years worked and the payment of pensions (“the 1994 Decision”). In the applicant's opinion, the 1994 Decision unlawfully reduced the amount of pension he was entitled to receive under the 1993 Act.
9.  In 1998 the applicant asked for a recalculation of his pension on the basis of the 1993 Act. Following the Ministry's refusal of his request, he initiated court proceedings. On 18 June 1999 the Centru District Court rejected his claims.
10.  In September 2000 the applicant again asked for a recalculation of his pension, considering that the 1994 Decision had unlawfully changed the provisions of the 1993 Act by reducing the amount of pension payable to persons in his situation. He claimed 9,656 Moldovan lei (MDL) (920 euros (EUR) at the time), which constituted the difference between the amount of his pension and the amount to which he was entitled by law, with effect from 1 July 1993.
11.  On 22 October 2001 the Chişinău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the Ministry to recalculate his pension from 1 July 1993, in accordance with the 1993 Act. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable fifteen days later.
12.  On 28 August 2002 the Decisions Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Department”) informed the applicant that on 15 November 2001 it had registered his request to have the judgment enforced. On 10 June 2002 the Department set a time-limit for the Ministry to comply with the judgment. On 15 August 2002 the Ministry replied that the applicant's pension had been calculated correctly. The Department requested the Ministry to submit the “calculation sheets showing the sums on the basis of which the pension was calculated”. The Department promised to keep the applicant informed.
13.  On 5 September 2002 the Department sent the applicant a similar letter.
14.  On 17 April 2003 the Ministry informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour had been enforced. In the same letter the Ministry stated that the applicant's pension had been calculated on the basis of the 1993 Act and the 1994 Decision up to 1998. From 5 February 1998 his pension had been calculated on the basis of amendments to the 1993 Act adopted in 1997. His pension was recalculated again on the basis of a Government decision adopted in 2000. The Ministry also informed the applicant that 710 warrants awaited enforcement, in a total sum of MDL 5,100,000. Since the Ministry's budget for 2003 did not provide for such a substantial sum to be paid for these purposes, payment on the basis of the enforcement warrants, including the applicant's, would be made after amending the 2003 State Budget Act and, progressively, as enforcement warrants were submitted to the Treasury of the Ministry of Finance.
15.  On 18 April 2003 the Department informed the applicant that on 26 November 2001 it had set a time-limit for the Ministry to comply with the judgment of 22 October 2001 and that in its reply the Ministry had stated that the judgment had been fully enforced. An annex was included in the letter, showing the amount of pension paid to the applicant between January and June 2003.
16.  The applicant complained to various State authorities, including the President and the Ministry of Justice, claiming that the judgment had not been enforced. On 2 June 2003 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the debtor had informed it that it had fully complied with the judgment and that no sums were outstanding.
17.  In reply to a request by the applicant to initiate criminal proceedings against persons responsible for the failure fully to enforce the judgment of 22 October 2001, the Prosecutor General's Office informed him that the judgment had been complied with. The documents in the file showed that his pension had been recalculated for the period 1998-2003.
18.  The applicant initiated two new sets of court proceedings against the Ministry. In the first proceedings he asked the court to order the correct calculation of his pension from 1 June 1993 and to award him MDL 1,556, as well as damages of MDL 300,000. In the second proceedings he asked for the enforcement of the judgment of 22 October 2001 and the payment of damages of EUR 300,000.
19.  In the first set of proceedings, on 11 October 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly upheld his claims and found that the judgment of 22 October 2001 had not been fully enforced. The court awarded him MDL 7,245 of withheld pension for the period from 1 July 1993 until 5 February 1998. On 8 December 2004 the Ministry of Internal Affairs transferred that sum to the Savings Bank in order to pay the applicant.
20.  In the second set of proceedings, on 8 December 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal left this claim unexamined as it dealt with the same issue as the one dealt with in the first court proceedings pending before the Centru District Court. On 21 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that decision and specified that the applicant's claims in the two sets of proceedings were distinct. On 3 June 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal left his claim unexamined in respect of the request to enforce the judgment, since that could not be the subject of new court proceedings. The applicant was informed of his right to request the enforcement of the judgment of 22 October 2001 within the enforcement proceedings. On 3 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded.